|
Why does the suffering of others matter to me in this though experiment? Why should I care that my children will die eventually, or how they will die? I mean, that's a value judgement rooted in a utilitarian sort of calculation, but if the assertion is that the ultimate calculation that the continuation of human life is not a goal, then why should I care about minimizing suffering? Why shouldn't I reproduce for my own entertainment? It just seems to me that this attempt to logic out whether life is "worth it" starts from an apriori emotional judgement of empathy and a desire to avoid suffering, but why should we accept those as starting points if we're trying to argue that things like love or the preservation of culture or anything outside of a purely utilitarian individual suffering metric don't matter? Why shouldn't I adopt hard solipsism and live my life in hedonistic excess at the deliberate expense of others if my moral calculation is that human life is valueless? Who decided that the suffering of others should matter to me, other than the culture that apparently erred in allowing me to exist at all? To be clear, my personal viewpoint is that even with suffering and an eventual death, the experience of life is inherently superior to non-existence. I can't really logic that out, because by definition you can't experience non-existence, but I sort of accept it as a baseline for my morality, upon which I can add the minimization of suffering and the promotion of development of potential as things that enhance human existence. But I find that a lot of these though experiments contain implicit value judgements that predispose them to the conclusion the asker is leaning towards anyway.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2021 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because the entire point of the OP's question necessitates that you care what happens to other people, i.e your children. If you do not care what happens to other people at all then the question is entirely moot to begin with, as indeed is the entire concept of "morality" for the most part. Well tbf your last bit is the real answer, but outside of that I prefer to care by giving comfort and support, not hyperfixating on the ledger book. I’ll care about what they care about and I will do my best to improve the environment to whatever extent I can. I mean I’m not saying you’re wrong if you think you shouldn’t reproduce. That seems like a perfectly reasonable choice. I’m just not seeing a way to then say that doing so is immoral.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 00:00
|
|
|
Where does the idea that suffering should be avoided at all costs come from? Why does that calculation, literally born out of chemical triggers in a brain optimized for preserving life functions, deserve to be considered inherently true? If I state that the drive to reproduce, which is rooted in the same chemical/biological structures as "suffering" matters more, couldn't I argue that not reproducing is inherently immoral? E: I'm saying this because the argument is that the experience of suffering itself, not the memory of it, not the negative effects on the organism in question, is what we are calculating things off of. But why? Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:E: I'm saying this because the argument is that the experience of suffering itself, not the memory of it, not the negative effects on the organism in question, is what we are calculating things off of. But why? because when I experience suffering I don't like it and if it happens a lot it makes me want to die, op. Now granted that might just be a false memory but sometimes I write it down too and then when I read it back I think "hmm yes this person seems like they want to die that's wild" OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 00:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:because when I experience suffering I don't like it and if it happens a lot it makes me want to die, op. So we use your subjective experience as the basis for morality? I also do not like to suffer, but my drive to keep existing is strong, after a suicide attempt earlier in my life. Just to lay it all out there. If I state that my fear of non-existence makes me not want to die yet (even as I know that I will eventually, but I keep wanting to experience things now), why is worth less in a dispassionate moral calculation than your desire to die. Granted, maybe I'll feel differently later in life, I don't know. Like you, all I have is my subjective mental state now. But, you yourself have argued that that's not something you can base a moral calculation on. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 00:21
|
|
|
Because we are proposing creating more lives, and I think perhaps creating lives that might reasonably want to die but which are also terrified of dying, seems bad! That sort of thing is also why I suspect there is a cognitive bias towards existing, your instinctive mind doesn't care about the quality of your life, it just screams at you not to die, which is quite consistent with an evolution that does not select for quality of life, only quantity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 00:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because we are proposing creating more lives, and I think perhaps creating lives that might reasonably want to die but which are also terrified of dying, seems bad! Why is that bias wrong? I think that the good parts of my life outweigh the negatives. You say this is because of a bias built into my brain by evolution. Why should I trust you over that bias?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 00:24
|
|
|
Nah OP. Kids are cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
Whole lot of excerpts from Baby's First Book Of Nihilism getting posted in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 00:26
|
|
|
Because again, insofar as I can determine that anything is right or wrong, something that just encourages you to exist with no thought as to whether it makes you happy, something that interferes with an accurate assessment of the state of your being for the sole purpose of fulfilling the selection bias of a blind and uncaring nature, seems like it might be as "wrong" as anything can be. If a human was giving that advice I would say it was bad advice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 00:27
|
|
|
E; you know what. Never mind.
Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 00:31
|
|
|
Well I don't have a thing that I can just shoot at people to make them die of happiness. And again, doing that would make other people pretty unhappy. Whereas somebody not existing in the first place is something I 1. can control quite a lot, I can not reproduce every second of the day. and 2. nobody is sad about people who never existed. So that's why I focus more on the not reproducing thing than the magic "make people die of happiness" gun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 00:35
|
|
|
Mata posted:We may not consent to being born, but staying alive is fully voluntary (barring a few hosed up exceptions like Tony Nicklinson) If someone decides to end their life because they can't handle the world they're in, wouldn't it have been preferable that they not be born at all? Yeah I can think of some specific cases where an individual might decide to end their life but for the most part had a worthwhile life - terminal cancer, the sudden development of a crippling disability. That's besides the point though. If your answer to "the world is about to become extremely hostile to new people, so maybe we shouldn't have them" is "well they can always kill themselves", that's an unacceptable answer for me. That's a dark joke. Mind you I agree with the rest of the post except for this point. Maybe I'm misreading you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 00:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well I don't have a thing that I can just shoot at people to make them die of happiness. And again, doing that would make other people pretty unhappy. Holy poo poo guy, this is obviously false. People get really sad about not being able to have children all the time. Have you ever met a person?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 00:40
|
|
|
I think I missed that part because I absolutely would not suggest at all that staying alive is entirely voluntary, you have some extremely difficult to overcome instinctive biases towards staying alive whatever the cost, to suggest that those are simply things you can just choose to ignore sounds like you have never tried.The Puppy Bowl posted:Holy poo poo guy, this is obviously false. People get really sad about not being able to have children all the time. Have you ever met a person? Then substitute "less" sad, then. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I 1. can control quite a lot, I can not reproduce every second of the day. Wow that must be a real struggle for you e: I'm shitposting but I also want to highlight what an unbelievably asinine stance this is. Do you think the rest of us are just wandering about flinging genetic material around with no thought to the consequences? some plague rats fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Wow that must be a real struggle for you The point of that sentence may have been to illustrate that it is, in fact, quite easy not to do it, and that most people spend most of their time not doing it, in fact. Which is a good thing, IMO. It is nice when good things are also easy. If you want a positive thing to think about, think about how every moment you are not reproducing there are future potential generations of your progeny who are... looking up at you from anti-heaven or wherever you come from before you are born presumably going "hell yeah don't incarnate me into that horrible human body you go dude don't gently caress wooo" there could be thousands of them down there cheering you on. Or perhaps you are flipping the bird at all your probably horrible ancestors by doing something none of them did. Eat poo poo ancestors. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 00:53
|
|
|
It's a pretty simple calculation to me, because I developed theory of mind as a child. Here we go. Would I rather be a. alive b. not alive If the answer is a then I'm in line with the greater mass of humanity, which probably includes hypothetical people in your weird mind palace. If the answer is b then I need to sort my poo poo out and get therapy and medicated until I see the value of life instead of assuming that I'm the protagonist of reality and have stumbled across an insight that has escaped generations of humanity so far
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Or perhaps you are flipping the bird at all your probably horrible ancestors by doing something none of them did. Eat poo poo ancestors. Oh, you're just mad at your parents. Alright
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:07
|
|
|
It is slightly funny to me to phrase it as "divergent opinions on this topic must be corrected with therapy and drugs until they are no longer held, because it is absurd to suggest that there could be any other valid opinion on the matter" Like, perhaps that is one of the social mechanisms I mentioned by which a positive view of life is maintained? Because either you die from lacking it or you are medicated and influenced until you affirm it again. Which is an excellent example of a selection bias but it doesn't really prove that it is morally good, only that it is persistent and self reinforcing. Which can be said about a lot of ideas in our society. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:An idea related to this that I particularly enjoy is that it makes sense that you would evolve to believe life is worth living, but the easiest way to achieve that is simply to have a cognitive bias towards minimizing suffering, rather than actually not suffering. So it seems highly likely to me that the day to day existence of life is much worse than we remember it being, so that we constantly experience suffering but we just don't really think about it afterwards, because if we did we would stop living. This is not true. quote:A new study suggests that we recall bad memories more easily and in greater detail than good ones for perhaps evolutionary reasons. Evolution may not want us to kill ourselves but it also wants us to not get killed, so being able to recall threatening or bad situations and avoid them is useful. E: jesus do I not understand the English language
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
I mean to be honest saying the brain fixates on trauma in order to increase the probability of future survival just seems like your brain wants to you live as long as possible as traumatized as possible. Which also seems bad? Like I don't think it's that weird to suggest people can fixate on the specifics of horrible events to the point that it continues to make them unhappy while also minimizing it just enough to stave off suicidality. Your brain running you right on the edge of mental collapse would be very on brand. Certainly it is very relatable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:17
|
|
|
So, let's consider the following: Prior to the existence of living beings that are capable of conscious experiences (and I'm defining "conscious experiences" very broadly here, literally any being that can react to feedbacks and possesses some kind of memory is a conscious being in this accounting), the universe operated solely by the laws of physics. Waves of water beat upon lifeless shores, the cosmic dance of stars and galaxies played out in accordance to the laws of gravity and motion. It was an unconscious universe, a universe that did not have objects of matter that could respond to stimuli. The universe was valueless and amoral, as there was nothing there to prefer anything. After the development of conscious beings, which behaved in certain ways in response to their environment, this state of affairs changed. Because of the circumstances of their evolution, living things could be said to "prefer" one state of affairs over another, insofar as taking physical action based on input stimuli, actions in accordance to some goal. So a bacterium could be said to "prefer" moving towards some food source rather than not to do so. A plant could be said to "prefer" sunlight. A beaver could be said to prefer a river with a dam made of logs than one without. All of these beings possessed the ability to take actions to enact a state of affairs more in accordance to their preference than not. And so one could say that the existence of consciousness brought into being in the universe a concept of "preferable" versus "not preferable", insofar as there being "states of affairs which conscious beings take action to enact and avoid". Therewith came "good" and "ill". There was no objective good or ill prior to the existence of conscious beings, because collections of solid matter that drift with the laws of physics cannot positively enact a different state affairs than simply being. Given this perspective, which is my perspective, anything which instantiates a state of affairs that more conscious beings prefer would create more good for those beings. And the creation of more conscious beings -- and I'm still using the very broad definition that encompasses all life -- and the creation of conscious beings that are more conscious and more capable would bring into existence more entities that could act to create preferable states of affairs for themselves. The more things that exist that can feel and act, then the more those beings can act to transform the material of the universe into a state of affairs that is more preferable to them. Thus, the goal of life, in my view, should be to propagate itself, and the goal of those conscious beings that are capable of contemplating their own existence, and the good of other conscious beings -- namely us -- should be to further propagate environments that are conducive to the evolution of conscious beings. Whatever you personally decide to do about having children of your own, it is morally imperative to contribute, in some way, to whatever ability you have, to the fostering of consciousness and the existence of life in the universe, as doing so maximizes the possibility of conscious beings coming into existence and having conscious experiences. The alternative is to accept a universe that is pre-conscious, a universe of atoms jostling against each other insensibly. That would be a universe where no more good could be created, because there would be no more conscious beings to prefer anything. That's not an acceptable outcome, because, having already come into being, the ultimate moral good would be to reproduce and foster conditions that increase it for all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:33
|
|
|
Barring some quibbles about the deterministic nature of the universe I agree with the most of the first four paragraphs but there is a bit of a jump between that and "therefore we need more of this" and especially the idea that conscious life can, in the face of the complexity of the universe, actually make the world more preferable to itself on a macro scale. I think it more likely that we do not posess the organizational capacity to do that and will probably end up stuck in a sort of loop of growth and collapse like all other forms of life. Also as good and bad are purely fictions in our minds it seems weird to ascribe any sort of cosmic importance to it. Sounds a bit woo woo to me. Applying them to other fictions of our minds seems fine but further than that seems weird. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:40
|
|
|
I just can't stand kids, OP, and would be quite happy to never encounter them again for the rest of my adulthood if that were possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Barring some quibbles about the deterministic nature of the universe I agree with the most of the first four paragraphs but there is a bit of a jump between that and "therefore we need more of this" and especially the idea that conscious life can, in the face of the complexity of the universe, actually make the world more preferable to itself on a macro scale. I think it more likely that we do not posess the organizational capacity to do that and will probably end up stuck in a sort of loop of growth and collapse like all other forms of life. https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:52
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Barring some quibbles about the deterministic nature of the universe I agree with the most of the first four paragraphs but there is a bit of a jump between that and "therefore we need more of this" Let me explain the logic there, then. 1) "Prior to the existence of conscious beings, the universe had no good or ill". 2) "Conscious beings act as if some states of affairs are more preferable to other states of affairs". 3) "The evolution of conscious beings caused there to exist in the world subjective experiences which, to them, are either more preferable or less preferable". 4) "The more conscious beings there are, the more things exist which can have experiences." 5) "Some of those experiences will be positive, and those beings will act to maximize those experiences." 6) "We should act to maximize total positive experiences experienced by conscious beings". 7) "Therefore we should act to maximize the possible number of conscious beings". quote:especially the idea that conscious life can, in the face of the complexity of the universe, actually make the world more preferable to itself on a macro scale. A disagreement over how practically feasible a goal is is a different point than a disagreement over what something is in abstract. As soon as an ant places a grain of sand that was lying at point x on its hill at point y, it has made the universe more preferable to itself. Aggregated over all conscious beings, any universe that has the capability of supporting more conscious beings is preferable to one that isn't, no matter how small the contribution. quote:Also as good and bad are purely fictions in our minds it seems weird to ascribe any sort of cosmic importance to it. Sounds a bit woo woo to me. Applying them to other fictions of our minds seems fine but further than that seems weird. They are not. Subjective experiences exist, because they are manifestations of the arrangements of matter that form conscious beings. "Good and bad" insofar as they are defined as "states of affairs that are more or less preferable to conscious beings" exist objectively as long as there are living things to act as though they prefer or avoid them. EDIT: The definition of "good and bad", however, is something that is subjective, and can vary depending on perspective. A "good and bad" that is the same for all beings does not exist. "Good and bad" at all exists. It is perhaps better to say that goods and bads exist. DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 01:53
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Let me explain the logic there, then. So I think I get lost about around point 6. As this assumes that positive experiences necessarily outweigh any negatives. If you have one posiitve experience and a shitload of bad ones then it was still "worth it" (by whose measure?) because you had more positive experiences than if you didn't exist. DrSunshine posted:A disagreement over how practically feasible a goal is is a different point than a disagreement over what something is in abstract. As soon as an ant places a grain of sand that was lying at point x on its hill at point y, it has made the universe more preferable to itself. Aggregated over all conscious beings, any universe that has the capability of supporting more conscious beings is preferable to one that isn't, no matter how small the contribution. And here I think that feasability is critical because if somehow ants all acting according to their own preference ended up making a world where all the ants were very unhappy (imagine that ants can be happy and unhappy for the purposes of the argument) then that would be a problem. That a creature judges a thing to be in its own best interest doesn't mean very much, because in so doing it may not be considering the interests of other creatures which in this framework are also real things, no? To say nothing of its ability to determine its own best interest in the face of, again, a complex universe. Basically this seems to assume that there cannot be bad outcomes as long as everyone acts in their own interest which... uh... have you looked outside recently? I don't think that is true. Also just generally the phrasing is odd, like why is the objective just "maximise conscious being count" like why is that better? Who is deciding that it is better? Is there some sort of god playing the universe and maximum consciousness is the win condition? E: DrSunshine posted:They are not. Subjective experiences exist, because they are manifestations of the arrangements of matter that form conscious beings. "Good and bad" insofar as they are defined as "states of affairs that are more or less preferable to conscious beings" exist objectively as long as there are living things to act as though they prefer or avoid them. Completely lost me here. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 02:00
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:6) "We should act to maximize total positive experiences experienced by conscious beings". I think you're running into the repugnant conclusion here. Let's say you could quantity happiness in "Happiness Units" (HU). Let's say you have a million people each with 10 HU and a thousand people with 1,000 HU each. Which is better? If we judge only by total happiness, then clearly the first is better with 10^7 HU vs 10^6 HU. But the first one is clearly worse for individuals. Which would you prefer to live in? E: and almost certainly, even if having other people makes the world more hospitable, there is a threshold of diminishing returns at some point. No one wants to live in Kowloon Walled City America Inc. fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 02:17
|
|
|
Big Scary Owl posted:Might be a weird brain worms issue of mine, but I've always thought that reproducing seems wrong/bad in general, either for the children or for yourself. Life is pretty bad in general imo, some of us get lucky but even then the baseline is not great, and the pain and suffering people feel seem to far outweigh the positives. For example, is the best thing that's ever happened in your life worth a disease like cancer or mental illness? If most of life is suffering or if there's more bad then good, then are parents not morally/ethically/logically wrong? Modern Buddhism takes the viewpoint that we are stuck in an endless cycle of rebirth, that existence is suffering and that we should seek to a) reduce this suffering b) end the rebirth by reaching Nirvana. From a logical viewpoint, this makes sense, by reducing the overall suffering in the world you are likely to reduce your own suffering in a future reincarnation. In Buddhism, though you are not merely reincarnated as a sentient human, you could be reincarnated as a Raven or an ant who is also considered sentient. Simply refusing to reproduce will not reduce future suffering, it will likely have no impact upon it. The only way to end it totally is to reach Nirvana. Whilst we exist we should all seek to reduce suffering. By having children, if that is a choice you make, we can seek to reduce overall suffering by passing on cultural learning to our children in the way of reducing suffering. You can also do this by not having children and contributing to your community though. From a personal spiritual viewpoint, where people get the Buddha wrong, and an older version of Buddhism posits that there is one continuous soul that strings everything together. Escape is not possible until the end, and Nirvana is merely a connection to this larger stream of the self. I'll sound like a crazy person and tell you that I've experienced Nirvana, so I'm not merely musing on it here. Objectively life was worse in the past. We are now at a point in history where we are able to do something about our suffering in a meaningful way. The morality of parenthood is moot, it is neither good or bad. Nothing is good or bad to the whole, only to the individual. You should ask yourself instead, how can I reduce my own suffering, and that of others who are different manifestations of myself? I should probably point out here that the point of existence is not to reduce suffering, suffering will always be a part of existence because we live in an imperfect world. Entropy exists and there is a defined endpoint to it all. The purpose is to experience so that upon rejoining the stream we can be born and make decisions with the full wealth of experiences. Some of the suffering balances out, when you're both the eagle and the rabbit, sucks when you were the rabbit, awesome when you were the bird. But now that we're people, we don't have to take from ourselves to enjoy our lives, we can enjoy our lives by helping others. Some of the sufferings is inherent to existence - death, disease, luck. I can't blame someone if I'm struck by lightning, that just sucks. But I also can't attribute wonder and love to other people, those things come from within. And personally, to love and be loved makes all the lovely parts of my life immeasurably worth it - my cancer, the death of loved ones, the diseases I've had, the times I've been in so much pain that death seemed like a preferable option (yay for painkillers). Worth it, I would do it all again. And if I'm willing to live my life again, I'm willing to have children to experience love and wonder as I have. Put it this way, thought experiment. There is a plant called the suicide plant. Touching this plant ignites your nerve endings in such a way that you wish for death, it is that painful. This pain can last for years. If you do not know of this plant, you might touch this plant. People have touched this plant, that is how we know. Now that we know, we can pass this knowledge on to others. No one needs to touch this plant again, and as our knowledge grows, we are better able to treat this pain should someone touch it in the future. Not having children won't fix this suffering. Eliminating human life won't fix this suffering. Knowledge will fix this suffering. We can put that suffering aside and focus on better things, like how great the Snyder cut of Justice League is, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 02:25
|
|
|
adoration for none posted:No one wants to live in Kowloon Walled City Plenty of people were happy in Kowloon Walled City, and had to be forcibly evicted. Nobody paid taxes and there was business to be had. I mean sure you might not see the sun for days, and your home is one room that is like 7 feet square for 4 people, but you could make some serious bank. And anyway home is home. Things peaked in the crime front in the 60s and 70s. By the 80s it wasn't perfect but it wasn't a hellscape either. So you have a short commute, good pay, and a tight community. Yeah the air isn't great, the noise pollution is ridiculous, and law is a foreign concept, but people adapt. Which is sort of what this all comes down to. Someone posits a thing that is bad, but which the people that actually had to experience it were more or less fine with or overcame. Why is it bad because someone else says it was? Who makes them the arbiter? Conversely the people that were fine with it aren't the arbiter either, but if the people that experienced it can't agree that it was a universal hardship who gets to override them? And why? The end of this conversation is always someone saying "These things are bad because I say so" and someone else going "Naw". Depending on which person you side with the entire conversation is either logical, or a defense of suicidal ideation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 02:41
|
|
|
Mulva posted:The end of this conversation is always someone saying "These things are bad because I say so" and someone else going "Naw". Depending on which person you side with the entire conversation is either logical, or a defense of suicidal ideation. I suppose happiness is just such a subjective, unquantifiable, fuzzy thing that we can't really come up with deductive answers to questions like "is life worth living?" if the metric for "worth" is happiness. Perhaps the actual foolish part of evolution is that it motivates us to continue existing by the balance of chemicals in our brains and not by more logical factors. Perhaps there are intelligent lifeforms out there that don't care about happiness or pleasure and they're better off in terms of furthering their existence. E: and that isn't a joke, it's perfectly possible that the singular focus on pleasure could lead to outcomes that don't propagate intelligent life in the universe. I've always thought that one of the possible solutions to the Fermi Paradox is that intelligent life gets so caught up in creating simulations and AI for its own pleasure that it gives up on exploring the cosmos, and prefers to stay in simulations instead. The "hikikomori" or "matrix" solution if you will. Even worse, imagine a form of life that decides that it will simply convert all matter it finds to feed increasingly complex simulations, killing off other life to feed its neverending desire for pleasure. Or imagine the Affront from the Culture series. How do we know that what we require for pleasure won't be in opposition with other alien lifeforms? If the goal is "propagate life" would we simply be propagating human-like life? Is that chauvinist? America Inc. fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 07:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:So it seems highly likely to me that the day to day existence of life is much worse than we remember it being, so that we constantly experience suffering but we just don't really think about it afterwards, because if we did we would stop living. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070828110711.htm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 11:39
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Isn't it the opposite? People remember negative experiences much more strongly than positive ones? I think the thinking logic goes that was the 'reset' was between lives. Some people's lives are a lovely weekend, but the majority of peoples lives are the weekdays of torture. That's how I interpreted it. If most people are going to have lovely torturous lives, then why have children? But here we are and we can't even come up with a metric for shittiness or goodness. Everything is subjective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 12:26
|
|
|
r/childfree with $5 words replacing "crotchspawn" and "poo poo out a cum pumpkin"
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 15:39
|
|
|
I think it’s morally bankrupt to pressure other people to have kids. Society at learner does this, but some parents are notorious for demanding grandkids and then you get the crowds of folks who refuse to treat anyone who hasn’t had kids like they are still children themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
adoration for none posted:I think you're running into the repugnant conclusion here. Well, we can't quantify it. Those million people with 10 HU might have no reference or context to compare with the thousand people with 1,000 HU. To the people with 10 HU each, their whole existence might be better, because to them the whole difference in the world matters between 10 HU and 0 HU. You could flip this argument around the same way and apply it to any kind of social welfare. Would you prefer 1000 rich people get the best healthcare in the world (like in the USA), or a million people get decent, universal healthcare? My point is that you can't really quantify what "happiness" is. The best reference point is in simply "numbers of conscious life forms", and leave them the maximal opportunity to act upon their values by ensuring equitable outcome. This is also different from the "libertarian" argument where if you leave it all to the free market, everyone will rationally get their utility through free exchange.  This is what maximizing optimal outcomes means, and my argument is that it should be applied across the space of all existing and possibly existing conscious life forms. DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
You could not because you are not proposing creating more people in order to give them passable healthcare. That question deals with distribution, not the size of the possible pool to distribute to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You could not because you are not proposing creating more people in order to give them passable healthcare. That question deals with distribution, not the size of the possible pool to distribute to. What's to stop us from creating more people and giving them all excellent healthcare? Like, your argument somehow boils down to "we can maximize good outcomes by eliminating all conscious life, because consciousness necessarily entails the capability of experiencing negative outcomes". But that's just denying the entire argument. Reducing all possible utility to zero is not the same as maximizing utility.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
DrSunshine posted:What's to stop us from creating more people and giving them all excellent healthcare? Like, your argument somehow boils down to "we can maximize good outcomes by eliminating all conscious life, because consciousness necessarily entails the capability of experiencing negative outcomes". But that's just denying the entire argument. Reducing all possible utility to zero is not the same as maximizing utility. That assumes there is some special value in life existing, which again I do not think there is. Once life does exist I would prefer it to exist in a manner it is happy with, but there is no obligation to make it exist. That is just something you believe apparently axiomatically. I don't think there is any extra value in a hundred happy, existing people than in five happy, existing people, as long as in neither case there are any unhappy existing people. Or, for that matter, and this is important, any existing people at all over no existing people at all. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2021 17:25
|
|